The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ending Online Wagering on Greyhound Racing) Bill 2025 amends the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to ban online wagering on greyhound racing by removing its current exemption from prohibited interactive gambling services. The ban takes effect two years after royal assent to allow the industry time to secure welfare arrangements for affected dogs.
Greyhound racing has been criticised for widespread animal welfare abuses, and the bill aims to reduce cruelty by cutting off the online betting revenue that sustains the industry.
This bill makes targeted changes to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Under Schedule 1, items 1 and 2 amend subsection 8A(1) by deleting ‘greyhound racing’ from the list of racing wagering services excluded from the definition of prohibited interactive gambling services. A minor drafting adjustment is inserted to clarify that subsection 8A(1) now applies to one or both of the remaining excluded racing services.
Clause 2 provides for a deferred commencement: two years after royal assent, to give industry participants time to rehouse or rehome dogs and adjust business models. Clause 3 confirms that the schedules of the bill effect the amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the measure targets a declining but cruel industry propped up by online wagering revenue.
Greyhound racing has well-documented animal welfare problems including high rates of injury, premature euthanasia and abandonment. By removing the exemption that allows online wagering on greyhound races, this bill cuts off a major revenue stream that sustains a cruel and unpopular industry.
Reducing the financial incentives for greyhound racing will lower the number of dogs bred solely for gambling and encourage more humane treatment. It will also help curb online gambling harm: punting on whippet races is correlated with a spike in problem-gambling behaviour among Australians, and banning the service will reduce exposure to addictive betting products [Judgment].
The two-year delay balances harm reduction with a reasonable transition period, giving operators and welfare groups time to support displaced animals. Overall, the ban achieves large animal welfare and public health gains at zero net cost to the Commonwealth.
Banning online wagering on greyhound racing infringes the property rights and contractual freedoms of consenting adults who wish to place lawful bets. It also imposes a regulatory restriction on licensed operators who have invested in legitimate businesses under existing law.
There is limited evidence that removing legal online betting will substantially improve animal welfare. Punters may simply shift to unregulated offshore platforms, undermining consumer protections and reducing traceability of funds [Judgment]. If the underlying cruelty remains unaddressed, cutting one revenue stream may not meaningfully reduce the number of dogs bred or the scale of welfare abuses.
The two-year transition may also be insufficient for welfare organisations to absorb a sudden influx of dogs, risking overcrowding and under-resourcing. A targeted animal-welfare regulation or enhanced enforcement of existing cruelty laws could be more effective than a blanket wagering ban.
2025-11-24
House of Representatives
Before House of Representatives
WILKIE, Andrew, MP
Unspecified
Consumer Protection, Social Support / Welfare